HI Jonathan.
Sorry for the very late reply, but thank you for adding the patch for
gdc into gcc xtensa-lx106! In the meantime I was manually compiling
gdc, but now I am combing back to xtensa projects, and things should
be way smoother!
Thanks again.
Regards,
Witold
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 13:16
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 06:12:07PM +, Witold Baryluk wrote:
> No problem.
>
> Both ways (single package or separate package) are fine for me. I did
> a single package in the PR draft because it was way easier to do. I
> have no idea how to make it into a separate package.
It's taken me far to
No problem.
Both ways (single package or separate package) are fine for me. I did
a single package in the PR draft because it was way easier to do. I
have no idea how to make it into a separate package.
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 18:10, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 10:27:54AM
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 10:27:54AM +, Witold Baryluk wrote:
> Have you had time to look at my MR draft I sent before?
This fell off my radar because of the build problems due to not pulling
in the extra required patches. I've done some cleanup of the package
build so the extra Debian patches a
Hi Jonathan.
Have you had time to look at my MR draft I sent before?
Cheers.
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 16:45, Witold Baryluk wrote:
>
> A simple (but not-too-simple) test is now included in MR:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/toolchains/gcc-xtensa-lx106/-/merge_requests/1/diffs
>
>
A simple (but not-too-simple) test is now included in MR:
https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/toolchains/gcc-xtensa-lx106/-/merge_requests/1/diffs
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 15:52, Witold Baryluk wrote:
>
> Yes, for the basic enablement I do have a draft patch (very simple):
>
> https://salsa
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:22:11PM +, Witold Baryluk wrote:
> So, it does appear that /usr/src/gcc-10/gcc-10.2.0-dfsg.tar.xz from
> gcc-10-source 10.2.1-6 ,
> doesn't have these patches applied. And the patches need to be applied
> manually after unpacking.
>
> /usr/src/gcc-10/debian/README.so
Yes, for the basic enablement I do have a draft patch (very simple):
https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/toolchains/gcc-xtensa-lx106/-/merge_requests/1
By inspection and my own manual tests/use it does work. But a sanity
test during build process would be indeed a good idea. I will take a l
So, it does appear that /usr/src/gcc-10/gcc-10.2.0-dfsg.tar.xz from
gcc-10-source 10.2.1-6 ,
doesn't have these patches applied. And the patches need to be applied
manually after unpacking.
/usr/src/gcc-10/debian/README.source provides some information, but it
is a bit tricky:
user@debian:~/xtens
Indeed. It looks like debian/patches/*.patch are not used
user@debian:~/xtensa-d/gcc-xtensa-lx106-8$ dpkg-buildpackage --no-sign
dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package gcc-xtensa-lx106
dpkg-buildpackage: info: source version 8
dpkg-buildpackage: info: source distribution unstable
dpkg-buildpackag
Excerpts from Witold Baryluk's message of January 21, 2021 6:52 pm:
> Hi.,
>
> I was trying to build cross-compiler for xtensa with D compiler
> enabled, and there is one things that makes that fail.
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/toolchain-team/gcc/-/blob/master/debian/rules.unpack#L154
>
> overw
Hi.,
I was trying to build cross-compiler for xtensa with D compiler
enabled, and there is one things that makes that fail.
https://salsa.debian.org/toolchain-team/gcc/-/blob/master/debian/rules.unpack#L154
overwrites gcc/doc/gcc-common.texi with minimal version (probably some
dfsg reasons).
bu
12 matches
Mail list logo
